Seventy Years On

Reiver · 06-08-2015 03:55PM #1

since the first use of atomic weapons in warfare on the city of Hiroshima (followed by Nagasaki a mere three days later).

Were the bombs dropped to force Japan to surrender? Were they using the cities as an experiment? Was it to intimidate the Soviet Union?

I'm just genuinely curious about peoples views here considering it's something we all learn about in school but beyond the bare facts, we don't discuss the morals of the act.

kfallon · 06-08-2015 03:57PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPPdRP1oa_A

darkpagandeath · 06-08-2015 03:57PM

The bomb was not a deterrent until used.

uch · 06-08-2015 03:58PM

Atari Jaguar

NachoBusiness · 06-08-2015 04:06PM

Great song by The Blue Hearts (Japanese punk outfit) released in 1985 on the 40th anniversary of Hiroshima (with English subtitles).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEGkOkhamIo

Hande hoche! · 06-08-2015 04:08PM

Was to save purple heart related costs.

tigger123 · 06-08-2015 04:11PM

There's never any justification for the mass murder of civilians like that. It's so indiscriminate.

Timberrrrrrrr · 06-08-2015 04:11PM

namloc1980 · 06-08-2015 04:13PM

Unjustifiable slaughter of hundreds of thousands of defenceless people.

Corvo · 06-08-2015 04:13PM

How many would have died other wise? Millions? The Japanese weren't going to give up.

Still a war crime of course, wiping out so many civilians in an instant.

The whole thing was a tragedy.

Reiver · 06-08-2015 04:15PM

tigger123 wrote: »

There's never any justification for the mass murder of civilians like that. It's so indiscriminate.

More were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo though and most people don't even seem aware of it.

And Bomber Command in the European theatre of operations were regularly decorated for their bombing runs over the mainland. I just get bewildered how some acts get condemned and others dont.

valoren · 06-08-2015 04:15PM

Why spend billions of dollar's to research, develop and build a bomb and not use it in while under a state of war?

It took another dropping on Nagasaki for the Japanese to accept the inevitable.

Aimead · 06-08-2015 04:17PM

A land invasion of Japan would have been incredibly costly and would likely have cost more lives than those lost with the bombings. The problem is that in order to try and determine justifiability you’d need to know what the costs of other actions were – and in my mind I don’t think the history books give the full picture needed to make that determination.

Truth be told, justifying it is made much harder given that they didn’t nuke a military base or two before hitting the cities.

namloc1980 · 06-08-2015 04:17PM

Reiver wrote: »

More were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo though and most people don't even seem aware of it.

And Bomber Command in the European theatre of operations were regularly decorated for their bombing runs over the mainland. I just get bewildered how some acts get condemned and others dont.

I'm pretty sure that the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden for instance have been widely condemned.

sxt · 06-08-2015 04:18PM

Corvo wrote: »

How many would have died other wise? Millions? The Japanese weren't going to give up.

Still a war crime of course, wiping out so many civilians in an instant.

The whole thing was a tragedy.

The Japanese were going to give up according to the top US Generals involved at the time. They had no Navy, airforce or any means to defend themselves. Their cities were already leveled to the ground. All the Generals were against the idea. The US President dropped the bomb as an example to what would happen to other nations if they didn't tow the line

The president of America, Truman, told the world that is was neccessary to drop these atomic bombs to save many lives on both sides, his word was taken as truth and as a justification to this day.

Harry S. Truman
"The atom bomb was no "great decision." It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness"

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, in a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson

"I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

Admiral William Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet,

"the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the
bomb was used".

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific

"My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender"

Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

"It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children"

Of course, school books in western countries will say that it was for the best, and that is was necessary but it wasn't. It was the biggest war crime in human history.

LuckyLloyd · 06-08-2015 04:19PM

Reiver wrote: »

since the first use of atomic weapons in warfare on the city of Hiroshima (followed by Nagasaki a mere three days later).

Were the bombs dropped to force Japan to surrender? Were they using the cities as an experiment? Was it to intimidate the Soviet Union?

I'm just genuinely curious about peoples views here considering it's something we all learn about in school but beyond the bare facts, we don't discuss the morals of the act.

Yes, absolutely. I don't see much of a conspiracy angle on this one tbh. A weapon became available that could take the American war effort to a new level in a brutal conflict with Japan and they used it.

Regarding the morals of it, there is a documentary called "Fog of War" which gets a very frank personal perspective from former US Defense secretary McNamara on his involvement in the War and he draws attention to the savage loss of life the fire bombing of wooden cities produced along with noting his belief that himself and others could have been tried as war criminals if they ended up on the losing side. But they didn't.

melted_face · 06-08-2015 04:20PM

the japanese had already slaughtered thousands of civilians in china and beyond by then . of course , 2 wrongs don't make a right but in war , nobody's completely innocent

Reiver · 06-08-2015 04:23PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden for instance have been widely condemned.

I did my Leaving a few years ago and we had no mention of it in our coursebook. Allied bombing raids over Europe and Japan alright but Dresden and Tokyo weren't mentioned at all.

Neither were other things such as Unit 731 or the Sack of Nanking.

The atomics got a paragraph or two but you'd be surprised how many people are ignorant of what happened.

Guy:Incognito · 06-08-2015 04:23PM

Why waste (hundreds of) thousands of your own peoples lives trying to defeat Japan and stop them committing their atrocities when it can be done without loss of life on your side?

If it comes down to a choice between 1 of my 2 sons and one of their 2 dying to stop them doing what theyre doing or both of their sons and none of mine, I'll go with the latter thanks.

They had no intention of surrendering.

tigger123 · 06-08-2015 04:23PM

Reiver wrote: »

More were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo though and most people don't even seem aware of it.

And Bomber Command in the European theatre of operations were regularly decorated for their bombing runs over the mainland. I just get bewildered how some acts get condemned and others dont.

Anything that targets civilians like that is deplorable.

I think those bombings loom large in history because it was the dawn of the nuclear age. Which is still relevant today. I think that's why we still talk about more so than other war atrocities.

NachoBusiness · 06-08-2015 04:24PM

Some amazing (*but very disturbing*) photos in the DM's article to mark the anniversary today.

namloc1980 · 06-08-2015 04:24PM

Reiver wrote: »

I did my Leaving a few years ago and we had no mention of it in our coursebook. Allied bombing raids over Europe and Japan alright but Dresden and Tokyo weren't mentioned at all.

Neither were other things such as Unit 731 or the Sack of Nanking.

The atomics got a paragraph or two but you'd be surprised how many people are ignorant of what happened.

I wouldn't put much stock in Leaving Cert history books to be fair.

Reiver · 06-08-2015 04:25PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why waste (hundreds of) thousands of your own peoples lives trying to defeat Japan and stop them committing their atrocities when it can be done without loss of life on your side?

If it comes down to a choice between 1 of my 2 sons and one of their 2 dying to stop them doing what theyre doing or both of their sons and none of mine, I'll go with the latter thanks.

They had no intention of surrendering.

Fair point, we do tend to forget about the millions of Allied and Japanese soldiers still fighting in Burma, the Pacific, China. The fighting and dying was still going on everyday.

Dr.MickKiller · 06-08-2015 04:25PM

Corvo wrote: »

How many would have died other wise? Millions? The Japanese weren't going to give up.

Still a war crime of course, wiping out so many civilians in an instant.

The whole thing was a tragedy.

I wonder if a siege might have been an option? The Japanese Airforce or Navy wasn't up to much at that stage.

melted_face · 06-08-2015 04:25PM

btw , the guardian have pictures up of hiroshima now and how it looked after the bomb which i found interesting .

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/aug/06/after-the-atomic-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-then-and-now-in-pictures?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

tigger123 · 06-08-2015 04:25PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. I don't see much of a conspiracy angle on this one tbh. A weapon became available that could take the American war effort to a new level in a brutal conflict with Japan and they used it.

Regarding the morals of it, there is a documentary called "Fog of War" which gets a very frank personal perspective from former US Defense secretary McNamara on his involvement in the War and he draws attention to the savage loss of life the fire bombing of wooden cities produced along with noting his belief that himself and others could have been tried as war criminals if they ended up on the losing side. But they didn't.

It's a great documentary.

valoren · 06-08-2015 04:26PM

Apparantly the following text included on leaflets dropped on Japanese cities.

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or a friend. In the next few days, four or more of the cities named on the reverse side of this leaflet will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories, which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique that they are using to prolong this useless war. Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s well-known humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.
America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique, which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace, which America will bring, will free the people from the oppression of the Japanese military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan.
You can restore peace by demanding new and better leaders who will end the War.
We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked, but at least four will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.

Now, imagine yourself as the Emperor of Japan and you read that.
Do you call their bluff? Conditions of surrender were outlayed to Japan well before the atom bombs were dropped. When confronted with the above warning, would you surrender or have the total arrogance to fight on to the end even after one of your cities has been destroyed? That you would have to wait for another bombing to finally accept defeat? The blood of those killed in the atomic bombings lies squarely with the Japanese authorities.

Barely There · 06-08-2015 04:27PM

If nuclear weapons weren't used on Japan during WW2, would they have been used in the 70 years since?

Impossible to know, but I think yes, and probably in the context of a global nuclear conflict.

I suspect we would not be here pondering the morals of bombing of Hiroshima had it not happened.

Rebellion · 06-08-2015 04:28PM

how did those pilots sleep that night?

Guy:Incognito · 06-08-2015 04:31PM

Barely There wrote: »

If nuclear weapons weren't used on Japan during WW2, would they have been used in the 70 years since?

Impossible to know, but I think yes, and probably in the context of a global nuclear conflict.

I suspect we would not be here pondering the morals of bombing of Hiroshima had it not happened.

It would have been a lot worse if the first was launched during the Cuban missile crisis. It may well have come to pass that none of us would be here today.

LuckyLloyd · 06-08-2015 04:34PM

Reiver wrote: »

I did my Leaving a few years ago and we had no mention of it in our coursebook. Allied bombing raids over Europe and Japan alright but Dresden and Tokyo weren't mentioned at all.

Neither were other things such as Unit 731 or the Sack of Nanking.

The atomics got a paragraph or two but you'd be surprised how many people are ignorant of what happened.

It's Leaving Cert History. It's not supposed to delve into the nuances of the conflict or attempt to be an authorative and detailed narrative. Countless volumes and man year's of research have gone into the individual decision to do the bombings, nevermind the result, context around them. Leaving Certificate history is doomed to be patchy and inaccurate, particularly when 'accurate' is a topic of hot debate in historic analysis.

Seventy Years On

Were the Allies right to drop the bomb? 84 votes

Comments